Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Vladimir Fedorov: on 4/8/17 at 6:51am UTC, wrote Dear David, Thank you for the good evaluation of my essay. I quickly...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 2:51am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

David Pinyana: on 4/6/17 at 21:29pm UTC, wrote Thanks Vladimir, But possibly the main new topics in my essay could be: -...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 4/6/17 at 3:02am UTC, wrote Dear David, With great interest I read your essay, which of course is...

David Pinyana: on 4/5/17 at 22:37pm UTC, wrote Peter, Thanks for your comments and I´ll have a look to your essay and...

Peter Jackson: on 4/5/17 at 12:35pm UTC, wrote David, I found your proposals interesting, original and well explained. I...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/5/17 at 5:36am UTC, wrote I see you have discovered some of this from a search.. No time now, but I...

Edwin Klingman: on 4/3/17 at 20:59pm UTC, wrote Dear David, Thank you for answering my questions and giving me a better...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jonathan Dickau: "As it turns out... My personal philosophy specifically treats the notion..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Jonathan Dickau: "I agree Lorraine, I've never been so much a fan of the 'paragon of..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Quantum Antigravity: "EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity —..." in The Myth of Gravity

Pentcho Valev: "Money for teleology and silly songs only? The teleology contest is a..." in Towards a Goal — Two...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)


FQXi FORUM
April 24, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: THE SCALE LANDSCAPES OF THE UNIVERSE by David Pinyana [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author David Pinyana wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 20:16 GMT
Essay Abstract

This article intends to show a new conception of the Universe: The scale/size relativity. This article proposes that the universe is composed of many more scale/size spectra (upper and lower) than the currently recognized limits (possibly over 10 e + 1000 m and below 10 e - 1000 m). And for every level/spectra there would be different physical concepts and laws (emergents), although they could be linked by common underlying laws and concepts. And we (humans) are not in the middle. We are just in a random level within this broad spectrum scale/size. This proposal / approach (if it is true and it can be proved) might be a very important advance in explaining certain physical concepts that are currently not entirely clear (Dark Energy and Matter, Uncertainty Principle, the dual nature of the particles -particle/wave-, etc.). (See Fig. 1). This article also join on the same framework several “state of the art” related theories, proposals and studies that are being considered independently by current physics: Emergence, Fractal, Brane-String, MOND-TeVeS, DSR-CDT, Scale Relativity, Gödel,…

Author Bio

David Piñana born 1958 in Spain and studied Industrial Engineering in the University of ETSEI Barcelona (1983). “The ¨Matryoshka-verses¨: The scale relativity of the Universe” (David Piñana, October 2012).

Download Essay PDF File




Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 22:44 GMT
Dear David Pinyana

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 08:38 GMT
Hello Mr Pinyana,

I loved your scales and rankings,general.

Congratulations.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Author David Pinyana wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 09:50 GMT
Please try to understand more the concept and you will see that this proposal is as important as it could be 1000 years ago to propose that the Earth is round.

"This proposal could revolutionize the future of Cosmological Physics: Aristotle, Newton, Einstein,…"

It is a journey from the smallest (the dimension of Planck) to the largest (Our Universe boundary). And he also shows, in a clear way, which may be beyond these limits.

The new proposals on Scale Landscape and Scale Relativity raised in this book could be a breakthrough in the current "state of the art" of the cosmology, showing a new outlook for a better understanding of the Universe.

This proposal will change our view about some common concepts (Energy, Matter, Time, Vacuum ...) and also about other “unusual” concepts (Dark Matter and Energy, Quantum Fluctuations, Uncertainty Principle, Wave-Particle Duality,...), based on recent studies and theories (Emergence, Fractal, Scale Relativity, Holography, String-Branes, Quantum Gravity, …).




David Brown wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 13:14 GMT
"Another alternative for Dark Matter could be that for larger scales emerge new forces (interactions) unknown nowadays." Two important questions in the foundations of physics are: What is relativistic MOND? What does MOND mean in terms of the foundations of physics? The empirical successes of MOND suggest that at least 1 of Newton's 3 laws of motions might be wrong. Google "kroupa dark matter", "mcgaugh dark matter", and (for my viewpoint) "dark matter compensation constant". There could be unknown forces that emerge on the cosmological scale and/or at the Planck scale.

report post as inappropriate

Author David Pinyana replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 15:17 GMT
MOND = Modified Newtonian Dynamic, It is a Theory from Milgrom that propose new laws for very small speeds. But only explain Galaxies rotation.

F = m x (a/a0)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynam
ics

In this article I propose that F = f (Scale)

TeVeS is similar but for larger scales, and can explain galaxies supercluster motions.

But other option that I propose in this article is that, in te same way that Gravity emerge when we joib a lot of Molecules (materia) , it is possible that other forces/interactios emerge when we join a lot of stars or galaxies.



Author David Pinyana replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 19:24 GMT
Brown,

What do you mean by: "kroupa dark matter", "mcgaugh dark matter", and"dark matter compensation constant" ?

Could you show me any article or link ?

Why you only consider dark matter ?.... we never detected dark matter...so it could be or not the solution... so we should think other options and SCALE FACTOR and NEW INTERACTIONS/FORCES could be other options also...



Author David Pinyana replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 21:33 GMT
OK Brown, thanks for these links..I found these WEBs... they are interesting...

But for this FQXI article Dark Matter & MOND are only small samples for SCALE FACTOR to be considered... also DRS, Uncertainty Principle,...and mor General concepts are included in the FRAMEWORK...

If weaccept SPACE SCALES infinites and with diferent laws and concepts, it is like when we accept that the Earth is round, and then we can understand why Moon is turns arround the Earth, and Earth arround the Sun....and we understand eclipses ... etc.




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 23:57 GMT
Good essay Pinyana,

Nice new concepts for a new Universe Model…. “This article intends to show a new Framework of the Universe: The Scale Relativity. This article proposes that the universe is composed of many more scale/size spectra (upper and lower) than the currently recognized limits (possibly over 10 e + 1000 m and below 10 e - 1000 m). And for every level/spectra there would be...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author David Pinyana replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 10:28 GMT
Thanks Satyavarapu Naga , I didn´t know about Universe Dynamic Model, and I´ll have a look to your articles...

Please, let me know if you see links and similirities between your Dynamic theory and the Scale Relativity-Emergent proposal (m-dimension@hotmail.com)



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 15:52 GMT
Dear David Pinyana,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author David Pinyana replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 21:47 GMT
I think that you didn´t read deep the article.... and you didn´t understood it.

If you really want to understand you should read if better and ask me this points you don´t like or you don´t agree.... and I will try to clarify it to you.

I couldn´t understand your article... are your surfaces similar to my landscapes ???




Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 11:50 GMT
Dear Pinyana,

I think that your essay is nice, the Landscapes of the Universe in your essay is good.

I like this phrase that "Empty" space might just be some kind of unknown "substance", made up of much smaller components, currently unknown (from a much smaller scale), and that still should be determined and discovered. This is what could give the empty space ("vacuum") a fractal (hierarchical) structure.

Empty space is not empty, which filled with some invisible substance.

You would read my essay that “A SPACE-TIME AS A PERFECT FLUID SINK FLOW” when you have a free time.

Ch.Bayarsaikhan

report post as inappropriate

Author David Pinyana replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 12:30 GMT
Thanks Sir, sure I´ll read your essay...and i´ll give you my opinion.

On my essay we should understand more the general concept about the Scale Universe... and so we will be able to understand a lot of mysteries we have nowadays (Dark Matter & Energy, Uncertainty principle, vacuum,...).

Better you can read my book "THE FRACTAL RAINBOW" (Mar.2017) you can get in AMAZON (KDP very cheap)




Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 14:10 GMT
Dear David Pinyana

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of the materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 09:44 GMT
Уважаемый Дэвид!

Я понял из вашего эссе, что физика – это дорога, на которую другие набросали много мусора, и вы пытаетесь разложить этот мусор по полочкам. Это увлекательная, но тяжёлая работа. Тебе в этом поможет только New Cartesian Physic, в основе которой пространство-материи эквивалентность. Единство пространства и материи возможно единственное рациональное в вашем эссе. О какой масштабности можно говорить, если то, что мы видим на небосводе изогнуто в прошлое, так как сигналы приходят минуты, часы, сто лет, тысячи лет и т.д. после события. Вселенная замкнута потому, что пространство в нём бесконечно двигается и меняет её конфигурацию.

Желаю тебе подружиться с New Cartesian Physic и проявить в ней свои способности.

Всего хорошего!

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 15:03 GMT
I find several points of agreement..

I recommended for publication, when sent a copy of Nottale's book for review several years ago. My departed colleague Ray Munroe wrote a paper on how the Scale Relative view helps us make sense of the particle landscape - after I gave him a copy. I also published a paper on Fractal Cosmology, some years back in Chaos, Solitons,& Fractals - dealing with some of the topics you reference. So I am familiar with the territory.

I find parts of this work a bit flaky, but it deserves a much higher rating than it enjoys. If you read my essay, you will see that I explicitly leave room for some of the points you make. I see the most recent void discovery as further evidence that the universe is fractal at all scales. However; I don't think the notion of 'turtles all the way down' is the correct resolution to the enigma in the nanoscale regime.

I have had personal contact with some of the researchers whose work you reference. It is important to properly acknowledge all the work you cite! I got to spend a fair amount of time with the Quantum Gravity folks at GR21, and attend their lectures. So I can flesh out some of the details about CDT, Braneworld scenarios, and other points where you get it almost right but miss the mark. This angle is certainly worthy of further research, but it is not yet a mature theory - only an interesting idea at this point.

There are some subtleties of the Math in higher-dimensional spaces that deserve mention. If you go up to higher dimensions or down to the Planck scale, the factors of non-commutativity and non-associativity must be considered, but even a lot of professional scientists do not treat this correctly. This was the gist of my conversation with Tevian Dray that forms the basis for my essay. I think you will find something to appreciate there.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 17:20 GMT
Hello again,

Reading what I wrote above, it sounds a bit too critical. I thought that overall you explained your idea well, and also have an idea worth pursuing. But in a contest like this, where your competition is some of the very scientists who are the top experts at major conferences, a high standard of excellence needs to be applied.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author David Pinyana replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 17:55 GMT
At all, it is an honor to have your opinion, and I will send my book in PDF (if I have your email).

Reading your opinion I think it is one of the few that has understood the concept and importance of my essay, even if you compare it with Nottale or other Fractal Cosmology essays, I think my essay presents important differences, even if they are not proven:

Most important could be the...

view entire post




Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 18:22 GMT
I will read this comment for detail later..

For now; I will assume you are familiar with the work of Magueijo et al, and so have heard about his Rainbow Gravity theory with Amelino-Camelia and others. If not, it's worth looking into. Also relevant is the Process Physics of Cahill, at Flinders U in Australia, if you do not already know of it. Spacetime is a moving or flowing fractal, in his formulation. I need to prepare for a meeting, but I will check back at some point, and offer further comments.

Regards, JJD

report post as inappropriate


Author David Pinyana wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:29 GMT
No sir, I don´t know these works:of Rainbow Gravity theory with Amelino-Camelia and Process Physics of Cahill... I´ll try to find them !

If you have any link, I´ll thank to you !




Author David Pinyana wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:42 GMT
OK I see: Rainbow Gravity:"Particles with different energies will actually see different spacetimes, different gravitational fields,"

But it is different what i am telling in my essay and book ... although could be linked in some way (?)... do you see how to do ?




Author David Pinyana wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:59 GMT
Process Physics from Cahill suggests to me my first idea of considering the Scale as another DIMENSION .... although I dismiss it as being dependent on the spatial dimensions xyz, and leave it as a simple variable, but I think that the SCALE can have a higher entity, and be Considered another DIMENSION.

That is a n idea to be considered !



Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 05:36 GMT
I see you have discovered some of this from a search..

No time now, but I have your e-mail.

Best, JJD

report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 21:06 GMT
Dear Mr. Pinjana

Your essay consists of many arbitrary conclusions without confirmation or attempt to explanation.

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Author David Pinyana replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 10:07 GMT
Yes, I agree that the essay (and I say it in itself) is not about giving mathematical demonstrations or experimental evidence, and that its main objective is basically to offer a General Framework in which fit very well many new theories (Fractal, Emergency, MOND, DSR, ...), and also I propose other alternatives to consider that are not currently being considered: The possibility that for the different Scalar Landscapes may appear different Interactions Forces, and that Scale Factor should be considered as a new Variable (or possible a new dimension ?)




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 03:44 GMT
Dear David Pinyana,

I've read your essay, but I'm somewhat confused as to what is supposed to happen on a scale. For example are you claiming new particles or other entities at smaller scales? Is yours a quantum field theory model? The only specific scale dependent entity I saw mentioned was the suggestion of the kind of 'quantum foam'. You also mentioned Calibi-Yau's 6D shapes, although I thought you tended to limit your consideration to 4D reality. Are there other entities suggested?

In a comment above you mentioned the possibility that this would somehow allow reinterpretation of the wave particle duality, but I do not recall discussion of this in the essay.

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Author David Pinyana wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 10:40 GMT
Edwin, Thanks for your questions, and I´ll try to answer them:

:

1.- are you claiming new particles or other entities at smaller scales?

Yes, better to say new entities or concepts, because what do you mean by particles ?...What is a particle ?... May we consider KK spaces as particles ?... And I also propose that there may be other entities within the KK...

view entire post




Author David Pinyana replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 10:46 GMT
TRANSLATION:

Pero yo no propongo ninguna entidad nueva, solo hago mención a entidades que se estan considerando actualmente por otras teorias o propuestas.

But I do not propose any new entities, I only mention entities that are currently considering other theories or proposals.



Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 20:59 GMT
Dear David,

Thank you for answering my questions and giving me a better understanding of your essay. I would have responded sooner, but it is hard to read all of the many excellent essays that have been entered in this contest. I received your pdf, thanks, but it too will have to wait until after the contest closes.

My best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Jose P. Koshy wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 10:49 GMT
David Pinyana,

You have tried to incorporate all the existing mainstream ideas into a single framework. Different emergent properties at different scales is a possibility. If the physical world is like that we cannot do anything about it; we can only try to explain each 'landscape' using different set of axioms.

However you have limited the number of 'landscapes' to 20. Though this is more than enough to contain all our future discoveries, theoretically there can be infinite 'landscapes'. Any theoretical limit is arbitrary; but if observational evidence suggests any limit, then it may be real. As you concluded, if we believe in a lower limit, we can expect a TOE.

What I propose is 'Finiteness Theory', limiting the 'landscapes' to a finite number, just five. Obviously, it has a lower limit and is 'a Theory of Everything'. Newtonian physics with some modifications (not MOND), is enough to explain these five 'landscapes'. The modifications are, (i). motion at speed 'c' is a property of matter (ii). force is reaction to that motion. The essay I have submitted is based on this model.

Jose P Koshy

report post as inappropriate

Author David Pinyana replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 23:43 GMT
No, I never limited the number of 'landscapes' to 20... I said that I think they could be infinites, and then TOEs are not possible.




Edward Kneller wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 17:51 GMT
David,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay 'The Cosmic Odyssey of Matter'. I agree, there are similarities in our scale approach to describing the universe. Your essay nicely summarizes several key topics including point of view and scale of interactions.

Regards, Ed Kneller

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 12:35 GMT
David,

I found your proposals interesting, original and well explained. I also found them reasonable and with some foundation so worth exploring. Of course I would do as much of it resonates very well with fundamental concepts and mechanisms in my own work.

It's a shame you couldn't align the presentation more with the essay topic, however you'll find my own essay uses similar...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author David Pinyana replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 22:37 GMT
Peter, Thanks for your comments and I´ll have a look to your essay and give also my opinion.

When you say: " to align the presentation more with the essay topic ".. I understand you mean with the theme for this Essay Contest: Wandering Towards a Goal: How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

You are true, possible I should focus it more to the emergences of laws and how different mathematical-physics laws bring other different laws with no apparent links between them.

But, well my idea was to show a very different cosmology framework which I think it will the future approach to follow, and where we can found many different particular approaches to study within a common framework.

The Cosmological Framework of the spatial scales where I think the Global Universe and its laws are best understood ... and many current mysteries can be deciphered.




Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 03:02 GMT
Dear David,

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high rating. Excellently written.

I agree with you

«This article intends to show a new conception of the Universe: The scale/size relativity. This article proposes that the universe is composed of many more scale/size spectra (upper and lower) than the currently recognized limits»

«(Alternative 1) to solve this problem (the galaxy rotation and other motions) is to assume that Newton and GR theories, are not valid for very long distance scales»

«This makes the Planck scale a fascinating realm for speculation by theoretical physicists from various schools of thought.»

«Theory could be another model that could help us to parametrize a wider spectrum of the Whole Universe»

«"Empty" space might just be some kind of unknown "substance", made up of much smaller components, currently unknown (from a much smaller scale), and that still should be determined and discovered. This is what could give the empty space ("vacuum") a fractal (hierarchical) structure.»


I wish you success in the contest.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author David Pinyana replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 21:29 GMT
Thanks Vladimir,

But possibly the main new topics in my essay could be:

- Different laws, concepts and also interactions could appear at different scale landscapes.

- Scale factor has to be considered as a variable (or possibly a new dimension?) within the different landscapes laws....

- If scales landscapes are infinites then only one TOE is not possible, there will be different TOEs that cover different landscapes ranges.



Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 06:51 GMT
Dear David,

Thank you for the good evaluation of my essay.

I quickly read your book. I think that it is very useful and makes think differently about the universe.

I think that right now it is necessary to think about the next step - to fill the subsequent work by models, calculations, examples, experimental proofs and practical applications.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Fedorov

report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 02:51 GMT
Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.